Maybe I don't understand the problem...

[Hussar]

If the rules are causing problems and you need to throw them out, isn't that kinda proof that the game is heavily flawed?

The answer then is to discuss those flaws so they can be remedied in the next game or the next edition or what have you.

Well, no, not necessarily. It might simply be that the rules are fairly complex and detailed, but don't come up all the time. As was mentioned, tripping in 3e or ((shudder)) grapple. Or, it could be something really situational. After all, how often do you look up the balance rules in 3e? We rarely did. But, there were the odd situation where it might come up.

Flying combat rules are another one. Flying combat isn't something that came up regularly in my games, so, when it did, we typically had to break out the books to figure out if we were doing things right or not. I can see simply handwaving it for the sake of expediency.

Although, as I've become older and hopefully a better DM, I almost always handwave in favour of the players now.

 

[Stormonu]

#5 and #9 are the biggest to me. I appreciate a good boy of rules, but DMIng also means knowing when to throw them out and get busy.

 

[Umbran]

If the rules are causing problems and you need to throw them out, isn't that kinda proof that the game is heavily flawed?

No.

Say someone is deathly allergic to strawberries. Strawberries cause them problems. This does not imply a major flaw in strawberries, but just says this person has problems with strawberries.

If a group has problems with some segment of the rules, it does not mean the rules are objectively broken - just that they don't work for that group. If it happens frequently, the solution is still to sit down and talk it out and see if you can find some way to make the game still work.

The difference sounds minor, but conceptually it isn't. There's a massive difference in the mental models of "the rules are flawed" and "there is a bad interaction between us and these rules" - and that difference causes more arguments around here than we can shake sticks at.

 

[Ariosto]

Accidental absolutism is the problem here, Professor. The train of thought goes off the rails when heavily flawed gets tossed in arbitrarily, without the predicate of heavy problems.

One can lightly revise a rules-set to make minor improvements, can one not?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

If the rules are causing problems and you need to throw them out, isn't that kinda proof that the game is heavily flawed?

Not proof of anything, though it is evidence that the game you're trying to play/run and the rules you're using to do it aren't perfectly compatible. But then are they EVER?

 

[Aus_Snow]

spam reported